The FFRF Action Fund is questioning the degeneration of the U.S. Senate race in Texas into whose interpretation of Christianity should govern public policy.
Following the emergence of Democratic nominee James Talarico and Republican nominee Ken Paxton as the contenders for a Senate seat, prominent religious figures and political commentators are increasingly characterizing the election as a contest between competing visions of Christianity rather than as a race to represent all Texans. Conservative religious leaders have publicly attacked Talarcio’s faith. Evangelist Franklin Graham accused Talarico of lying about Scripture and warned voters not to be “deceived by wicked politicians.” Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick urges Republicans to unite against Talarico, a professedly religious man and seminary student, because he allegedly “speaks against the Word of God.”
The Action Fund challenges such rhetoric.
“Americans elect senators, not pastors,” says FFRF Action Fund President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “The Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, yet influential religious leaders and public officials are openly attempting to turn a federal election into a theological tribunal. The question before Texas voters is not whose Christianity is correct.”
Recent commentary surrounding the race has focused heavily on which candidate better represents “true Christianity,” with some observers describing the election as a clash between rival religious visions and others condemning Talarcio for allegedly misrepresenting biblical teachings.
While urging Republicans to rally behind the scandal-ridden Paxton, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, declared that “there is no interpretation of the Bible that can support the Gospel of James Talarico.” Such discourse should alarm every American who values true religious freedom and the separation between state and church.
The United States was founded on the principle that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, not from religious doctrine. Public officials swear an oath to uphold a godless Constitution, not to enforce any particular interpretation of Christianity. Yet much of the rhetoric surrounding this race has focused not on public policy or qualifications for office, but on whether particular religious interpretations are sufficiently orthodox.
FFRF Action Fund has repeatedly recognized Talarico as its “Secularist of the Week” for his public defense of state/church separation and opposition to government-sponsored religion, including his criticism of efforts to impose religious doctrine through public schools. By contrast, Paxton was named the Action Fund’s “Theocrat of the Week” earlier this year for his repeated attempts to erode the constitutional separation between religion and government, including his support for government-sponsored prayer, religious displays in public schools and other policies rooted in Christian nationalist ideology.
The Texas Senate race will undoubtedly feature vigorous disagreements over issues ranging from abortion to education to the role of government. But those debates should be conducted in civic and constitutional terms, not as a contest over which candidate has “God’s endorsement.”
No elected official represents only Christians, and no religious leader gets to decide who is qualified to serve in government. Texas voters deserve a campaign focused on the issues that affect their lives, not a referendum on competing religious doctrines.
The FFRF Action Fund urges candidates, elected officials and religious leaders alike to respect the constitutional separation of religion and government and allow voters to make their decisions based on public policy rather than sectarian appeals.
FFRF Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization that develops and advocates for legislation, regulations and government programs to preserve the constitutional principle of separation between state and church. As an advocacy affiliate of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, it also advocates for the rights and views of nonbelievers, endorses candidates for political office and publicizes the views of elected officials concerning religious liberty issues.